repoinfo.conf and older releases
James Laska
jlaska at redhat.com
Thu Sep 23 13:06:11 UTC 2010
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 05:02 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> ----- "James Laska" <jlaska at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Currently, we don't remove old releases from repoinfo.conf. However,
> > we
> > do mark some of them (only the dist-fXX entries) as
> > 'isactiverelease=no'. This affects some test results in that we
> > don't
> > have a way to determine what releases are no longer needed for
> > testing.
> > Specifically, this affects the post-repo-update watcher, and the
> > upgradepath test.
> >
> > For example with upgradepath, we are testing a proposed
> > f13-updates-testing package against everything from dist-f10 to
> > dist-f15
> > (see sample result [1]). While the results from older unmaintained
> > releases may be interesting, they shouldn't affect the test outcome.
> > Some options to address this ...
> >
> > 1. Use isactiverelease more - In a recent commit
> > (6b3ae44dee122b030bcede1a2059a7533ee8203f), we introduced the
> > 'isactiverelease' repoinfo.conf option. This is currently
> > only
> > used on the unmaintained dist-fNN entires. I'd propose we
> > use
> > this for all unmaintained repoinfo.conf entries (includes
> > -updates and -updates-testing) *and* updating any tests or
> > scripts to honor this option.
> > 2. Remove (or comment out) unmaintained releases - Certainly an
> > option, but my preference is #1 for some reason. But if
> > folks
> > overwhelmingly feel that just removing older entries is
> > ideal ... I can't think of any objections.
> >
> > Thoughts/concerns/comments?
>
> What is the reason to keep repos of unmaintained released in repoinfo.conf?
> I can't find any usage of it. Currently I would just remove all unmaintained
> releases and remove 'isactiverelease' keyword as well.
Hmm, yeah. I don't know why I like keeping the old entries around. But
it does seem silly to continue with old entries that don't work. Let's
just drop f10 and f11 from repoinfo.conf.
> By the way, 'isactiverelease' variable confuses me anyway. Why is Branched
> active, but Rawhide inactive? I don't understand that.
While it's not 100% clear from the mail thread or the commit log on this
subject, I understand that the 'isactiverelease' was added to indicate
what entries has install images available. Wwoods can confirm. Iirc,
post-tree-compose was failing because install images are no longer built
and provided for rawhide (and for EOL'd releases [1]). According to the
comment in repoinfo.py,
getreleases() - '''Return the list of known, non-EOL
releases.'''
Using that definition, Rawhide isn't a Fedora release as installation
images are not provided. Rawhide is just a repository of packages. I
wonder if it makes sense to rename 'isactiverelease' to 'isinstallable'?
> We're mixing repos and releases in our repoinfo.conf file. For me it seems
> that two different semantics are intertwined in a single file. Not good.
That is the source for my confusion whenever we fiddle with repoinfo. I
created a wiki page to help remind me how to properly work with this
file as Fedora progresses [2]. Looks like I need to update to this to
remove EOL'd entries as well.
[1] Note this would be solved by removing EOL'd releases.
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_update_AutoQA_repoinfo.conf
Thanks,
James
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-devel/attachments/20100923/17e1f755/attachment.bin
More information about the autoqa-devel
mailing list